If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

SPOILER ALERT - The Indiana Pacers are staying in Indiana,and if I am wrong I will eat my keyboard.I am by no means suggesting that the blue and gold will continue to be retained by the Simon’s. However, I am confident that the Indiana Pacers will remain focal occupants of the Conseco Fieldhouse.

Why can I exert such blatant confidence?

It is simply not possible given the current “arid” economic climate and geographical desire for a professional basketball team. [1] The economic climate of North America is dry – no wait “arid.” Given the economic climate of half of the globe a move is very risky. While many billionaires might have an interest in a Simon short sale, I am confident that 99.9% of interested buyers would not want to risk moving the team to a new environment. [2] Furthermore, a suitable, fertile environment does not exist. Even if the Simons or a “buyer” decided expressed interest in a move, they would find that there are few places in the United States, Canada, or Mexico that could potentially receive and support an NBA franchise.

THE UNITED STATES

[1] Seattle, Washington. The Super Sonics moved, and now the fans of every slumping franchise with an expiring or near-expiring lease are in panic. Seattle would certainly love to regain an NBA franchise, but at what cost? The soul reason the NBA’s late elder son became the league's newest baby was because of a dispute over stadium conditions. The owners of the Super Sonics thought that Key Arena was a sub par professional stadium. While many agree, the city decided they would not invest the money needed to build a new arena. To complicate matters for the Sonics, the city also stated that they would not renovate Key Arena, unless the Sonics made significant finacial contributions.

Obviously Seattle wants a pro-team, just not the pro-price tag. Therefore if the Pacers are hemorrhaging money, why would they move to a city that would refuse to stop the bleeding? The Pacers need cash, and Seattle is not going to accommodate any team with a handout.

[2] Las Vegas, Nevada. After the 07’ All Star Game, it appeared that Sin City was the heir apparent for an NBA franchise. However, before you place your bet on a Pacers move to Vegas, consider the following. The city of Las Vegas may not be as ripe as Stern and Co. once anticipated. After several months of research, the city of Las Vegas concluded the creation of a new arena was not a sure thing. To complicate matters worst, the city does not have an existing arena capable of hosting a pro-team while a new stadium is built. Therefore, a stadium would have to be constructed before Vegas could welcome an NBA franchise.

While Vegas seems like a great opportunity for an NBA expansion or relocation, a Pacers move to the desert seems like a long shot. After all, the city of Los Vegas is at least 4 -5 years from a suitable arena.

[3] Baltimore, Maryland. I once heard that Baltimore was interested in a NBA franchise. However, studies were conducted and apparently a pro-team would not generate a large following.

Baltimore is a great football town, but it is not a basketball town. The Pacers will not be leaving from Indianapolis to Baltimore on a Mayflower semi any day soon.

CANADA

[1] Vancouver, Canada. This is by no means an insult to any users who live or have lived in Canada. However, Canada is not a possible location. I loosely quote Stevie “Franchise” Francis, players don’t want to play in Canada because of “Location, taxes, endorsements, and the will of God.” This is proven by the exoduses of stars such as Damon Stoudemire, Marcus Camby, Vince Carter, and Tracy McGrady.

Canada, particularly Vancouver, has proven to be a failed experiment. The Pacers, or any potential buyers would not want to subject itself to the trials and tribulations of a Canadian based team.

It appears that there isn’t a city or country that could suit the Indiana Pacers better than, you guessed it, Indiana. I believe the Pacers will remain in Indiana. I also believe that the Pacers best opportunity for success is in Indiana. No one buys a professional sports team with expectation that it will make significant money, and the Pacers are a playoff run and a descent marketing campaign from becoming sustainable._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

With that being said, I hope the city of Indianapolis shows favor to the Indiana Pacers. (This is the part where I get personal). I have been a Pacers fan and a Colts fan since the day I was born. However, the way that Jim Irsay took advantage of the city with L.O.S. was simply nothing short of sinister. Either the Pacers need to be given a similar deal (within reason), or Irsay needs to renegotiate some of the benefits he received on a stadium that was burdened by tax payers and is directly affecting other sports teams.

We the fans of the Indiana Pacers need to be proactive about promoting and marketing this team. Indiana is the best possible location for the Indiana Pacers, and there is no doubt that we can help the organization and the state realize that once again. >>

Re: The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

Im Canadian, and honestly, Vancouver is not a good location for the Pacers, they will continue to lose more money. Players (especially All Stars) will not want to play for their city. Prime example, Francis. He made it clear that the Gizz should not draft him because he wont play for them.

I know someone is going to mention, "Toronto Raps are doing financially well and theyre a Canadian team". Yes thats true, but Toronto is a much bigger, more populated metropolitan city, which Vancouver is not.

"So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.

Re: The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

Something that I haven't seen talked about is the Pacers TV money situation. The Pacers, as well as the Spurs, Nuggets and Nets have to give up 1/6 of their TV money to the former owners of the St. Louis ABA franchise.

I would think that this would make the Pacers a less attractive team to buy if someone was looking to purchase a team and move it. Immediately the new owner is at a disadvantage league revenue wise. This is a deal that simply stays with the franchise whether it's in Indianapolis or moves somewhere else. At least that is my understanding.

So...let's say the Pacers and the Memphis Grizzlies are both for sale. I would think that someone looking to buy a team and move it would pick the Grizzlies in a heart beat because of the revenue disparity (The Grizzlies and the other 25 NBA teams don't have this horrible TV revenue sharing deal of the 4 former ABA franchises).

Could it be that our bad TV revenue sharing deal actually makes it less likely that the team moves?

Re: The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

I'm glad to see a positive picture that uses some facts to back it up rather than just the typical hyperbole. Thanks for this post.

I remain passimistic, particularly given the collapse of the CIB funding solution and the venom showed against the Simons by some members of the public. It amazes me, the love being shown for Irsay and the Colts, when it hasn't been that many years since Jim's dad routinely pi**ed off the city with his actions and comments. Add to that the vitriol piled on the Simons because of the other deals they have gotten while providing jobs and an economic explosion in Indianapolis and I think people's anger is based on timing and winning record, not on the reality of economic contributions.

I hope you are right, and I hope this kind of sense prevails. The question is, does it simply change the question from one of selling the franchise to one of folding the franchise?

BillS

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

Much has been reported and communicated about the Colts over the past several months, including several statements which have been either misleading or simply untrue. We would like to set the record straight by sharing with you facts of the Colts' financial contributions to the State of Indiana and the City of Indianapolis and the club's significant investment in the building and on-going operation of Lucas Oil Stadium.

First and foremost, the Indianapolis Colts have not sought in the past, nor is the club currently seeking, any special favors from the CIB, the City of Indianapolis, or the State of Indiana.

The Colts never asked for a new stadium. In 2004, the City of Indianapolis approached the Colts about the possibility of a new stadium, not the other way around. The City's need for an expanded convention center and desire to accommodate the NCAA for future Final Fours prompted its exploration of a facility to replace the RCA Dome. At no time did the Colts threaten to leave Indianapolis or otherwise "hold the city hostage."
The Colts negotiated in good faith with the State and the City and eventually entered into a development agreement with the Indiana Stadium and Convention Building Authority (ISCBA), governing the construction of Lucas Oil Stadium, and a lease with the CIB, governing the Colts' use of the stadium.
The Colts made a 30-year commitment to the community. Those written agreements, signed nearly four years ago, committed the team to this community for the next 30 years with no option to renegotiate, regardless of any financial downturns that might arise.
The Colts agreed to take the risk and responsibility to achieve financial success in Indianapolis. The new agreements also removed the financial guarantees for the Colts that existed in our RCA Dome lease that could have cost the city tens of millions of dollars on a regular basis. In essence, the risk of financial success in a small market has been shifted from the city solely to the Colts.
The Colts have been meticulous in meeting and, indeed, often exceeding the requirements of those agreements. We have contributed over $100 Million to the construction of the facility and it is simply untrue for anyone to suggest we don't have "skin in the game."
It is also important to note that, from the very beginning, Lucas Oil Stadium was designed to be a multi-use facility to accommodate many users, not just the Colts. Already, the stadium has successfully hosted many events having nothing whatsoever to do with professional football and many more are already scheduled for years to come. While we are immensely proud to be able to call Lucas Oil Stadium our home field, the fact of the matter is the Colts only use the stadium a maximum of nineteen days a year; and the facility is available for use by virtually anyone else the remaining 346 days.
Second, the Colts have been engaged in extensive dialogue, based upon facts and equity, with those leaders who are working hard to find a solution to the CIB funding shortfall. Jim Irsay has personally met with Senator Luke Kenley and Mayor Greg Ballard to discuss these matters. Our representatives have also been in frank, open, and continuing communication with the CIB and the financial leaders of the state legislature since this issue began to emerge early last winter.

Third, our understanding of the CIB's history is that the CIB's budget shortfall is neither new nor unexpected. In fact, only a relatively small portion of the predicted shortfall can be directly attributed to the increase in actual maintenance and operations expense required by Lucas Oil Stadium. What is particularly puzzling is that the shortfall appears to have only become a crisis when the CIB concluded it might be obliged to assume all the operating costs of Conseco Fieldhouse to avoid an early termination of the Pacers' lease.
Fourth, the Colts believe recent criticism of its civic involvement to be unwarranted and unfair. We are extremely proud to have one of professional sports' most comprehensive community outreach programs. While we are deeply involved statewide, we have not predicated charitable giving and civic involvement upon how much public acclaim the club gets in return. The Colts remain committed to that approach.

Fifth, the Colts' commitment to the City of Indianapolis and the State of Indiana has also included providing an exemplary football team on and off the field. The club has invested heavily in recruiting players and coaches of which Indianapolis and the State of Indiana can be proud -- on game days and all the other days they make positive contributions to our communities. There are no more positive role models than Peyton Manning, Gary Brackett, and Jeff Saturday. We believe the Colts' record in wins as well as community leadership speaks for itself. In anticipation of this weekend's NFL Draft, the Colts are preparing to make multi-year and multi-million dollar commitments to the next generation of leaders like those three.

The Colts remain optimistic that a fair and equitable solution will be found that assures the fiscal good health of the CIB, an organization that is very important to the long-term success of Indianapolis and the entire State of Indiana. We hope, though, that the public discussions of the issues will be based upon facts.

I bolded and underlined the part related to the Pacers "What is particularly puzzling is that the shortfall appears to have only become a crisis when the CIB concluded it might be obliged to assume all the operating costs of Conseco Fieldhouse to avoid an early termination of the Pacers' lease."

This makes it appear that an early termination of the Pacers' lease on Conseco is definitely on the table, making discussions of the future of the franchise quite valid.

Re: The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

Something that I haven't seen talked about is the Pacers TV money situation. The Pacers, as well as the Spurs, Nuggets and Nets have to give up 1/6 of their TV money to the former owners of the St. Louis ABA franchise.

I would think that this would make the Pacers a less attractive team to buy if someone was looking to purchase a team and move it. Immediately the new owner is at a disadvantage league revenue wise. This is a deal that simply stays with the franchise whether it's in Indianapolis or moves somewhere else. At least that is my understanding.

So...let's say the Pacers and the Memphis Grizzlies are both for sale. I would think that someone looking to buy a team and move it would pick the Grizzlies in a heart beat because of the revenue disparity (The Grizzlies and the other 25 NBA teams don't have this horrible TV revenue sharing deal of the 4 former ABA franchises).

Could it be that our bad TV revenue sharing deal actually makes it less likely that the team moves?

I've seen this talked about quite a bit. I'm curious though what if the team moves and its a "new" team. Such as they start with a new name, new colors, and blank slate of team records. Are they still considered the ABA Pacers?

Re: The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

.... Jim Irsay took advantage of the city with L.O.S. was simply nothing short of sinister. Either the Pacers need to be given a similar deal (within reason), or Irsay needs to renegotiate some of the benefits he received on a stadium that was burdened by tax payers and is directly affecting other sports teams. >>[/I]

I can't say that I understand this way of thinking about the Colts and Irsay. Jim paid over $100 million for a stadium that he never asked for in the first place and that he has no ownership in. That's a ton of cash for something that he will never own any part of. Also, besides the Colts the Irsays do not have any other form of income that I am aware of; meaning that he is not worth millions without the Colts.

On the other side of the table, we have a billionaire and multi-millionaire/former billionaire who bought a franchise for the same reason most of us would buy a sports car, it's more or less a toy for them. They did not pay anything to help build their stadium (that I am aware of at least) and they will still be million/billionaires if they are forced to pay more to the CIB.

I understand that the Pacers do not want to continue losing money, and in the exact same way Irsay does not want to pay more than was agreed to.

My question is why all the negativism toward Irsay for not wanting to fork over profits from his only form of income after already paying over $100 million for a stadium he never asked for, while at the same time asking the city to favor the Pacers? Does the ability to pay mean nothing to the CIB and the public?

Re: The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

I can't say that I understand this way of thinking about the Colts and Irsay. Jim paid over $100 million for a stadium that he never asked for in the first place and that he has no ownership in. That's a ton of cash for something that he will never own any part of. Also, besides the Colts the Irsays do not have any other form of income that I am aware of; meaning that he is not worth millions without the Colts.

On the other side of the table, we have a billionaire and multi-millionaire/former billionaire who bought a franchise for the same reason most of us would buy a sports car, it's more or less a toy for them. They did not pay anything to help build their stadium (that I am aware of at least) and they will still be million/billionaires if they are forced to pay more to the CIB.

I understand that the Pacers do not want to continue losing money, and in the exact same way Irsay does not want to pay more than was agreed to.

My question is why all the negativism toward Irsay for not wanting to fork over profits from his only form of income after already paying over $100 million for a stadium he never asked for, while at the same time asking the city to favor the Pacers? Does the ability to pay mean nothing to the CIB and the public?

-confused

According to Forbes Magazine:

"A decrepit stadium can be replaced. In 2005 Marion County and the state agreed to finance all but $100 million of a new $719 million retractable-roof stadium for the Colts. Lucas Oil, a California fuel additives producer (no relation to the Russian Lukoil), chipped in $122 million for naming rights over 20 years. The Colts moved into Lucas Oil Stadium earlier this month. The team is on the hook for only a $66 million loan from the city, which Irsay can pay back over 27 years. The Colts pay a tiny $250,000 in annual rent while reaping all football-related revenues (tickets, parking, concessions, sponsorships), which will add $30 million a year. Remarkably, Irsay faced little resistance from taxpayers asked to pick up so much of the cost. "It's definitely one of the most favorable leases in recent league history," says Robert Vogel, president of the Bonham Group. This year the Colts make a jump in our value rankings, from 21 to 8, as their enterprise value increases 18% to $1.1 billion."

If you really are confused, let me clarify. No one is saying, "Let's favor the Pacers." My point is, "Let's be fair."

P.S., The Colts got to pocket the $122 million dollar naming right. Sounds like that $100 million Irsay chipped in (My understanding it was only around 3/4 of 100 mill).

Re: The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

P.S., The Colts got to pocket the $122 million dollar naming right. Sounds like that $100 million Irsay chipped in (My understanding it was only around 3/4 of 100 mill).

You also need to subtract the money the CIB paid the Colts against breaking the RCA dome lease, which I think was over $50 million. Now there's something I think is silly - moving them to a new facility counts as breaking the lease.

No, the Colts aren't hurting over this.

BillS

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

Re: The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

And, for those pointing to the value of the Pacer franchise as the reason why the Simons should be forced to suck up the losses, be aware that Forbes estimates the value of the Colts at $1 BILLION - that's "B" as in "b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b".

The same arguments against use of this figure apply as those against using the Pacer franchise "value", but a lot of people are ignoring those. I figured I'd throw this REALLY BIG apple into the comparison.

BillS

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

Also, just to clarify, the point I was trying to make is that the Simons are still worth billions without the Pacers while Irsay would only have a house in Carmel with a recording studio without the Colts. My personal feeling is that the Simons have more of ability to help out a struggling public organization than Irsay does.

True enough, Sweabs. Toronto is doing something right. It is probably true, though, to say no other Canuck city would support an NBA team.

It is the ecological fallacy: Toronto is in Canada, but Toronto doesn't look like the rest of Canada and the rest of the country doesn't look like Toronto.

And concerning the Simon v. Irsay squabble, let me add one more factor of incomparability. The Pacers use Conseco Fieldhouse 365 days a year. The Colts have their offices and practice fields at a separate facility. they use Lucas Oil Stadium only 10 days a year.

Last edited by Putnam; 05-06-2009 at 08:19 AM.

And I won't be here to see the dayIt all dries up and blows awayI'd hang around just to seeBut they never had much use for meIn Levelland. (James McMurtry)

Re: The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

True enough, Sweabs. Toronto is doing something right. It is probably true, though, to say no other Canuck city would support an NBA team.

It is the ecological fallacy: Toronto is in Canada, but Toronto doesn't look like the rest of Canada and the rest of the country doesn't look like Toronto.

And concerning the Simon v. Irsay squabble, let me add one more factor of incomparability. The Pacers use Conseco Fieldhouse 365 days a year. The Colts have their offices and practice fields at a separate facility. they use Lucas Oil Stadium only 10 days a year.

There is far more permanent Colts decor in blue and white, with horseshoes abounding throughout that has been incorporated into Lucas Oil stadium than there has been permanently incorporated Pacers decor in Conseco. Conseco is relatively generic in its built in branding compared to Lucas Oil stadium. While the Pacers use their facility a lot more than the Colts do, the Colts definitely receive benefit for far more than its 10 days of games (19 days of use per Colts.com CIB response letter) and no one disputes that the primary reason for the existence of the FAR more expensive, both to build AND operate throughout the year, Lucas Oil stadium. The retractable roof alone which is only going to be open maybe four times a year is an atrocious waste of money that ultimately only benefits the Colts and I'm sure is more expensive than the $100 million that the Colts put up, even prior to getting a good portion of that money back by being able to capture all football related revenue that the CIB could have had to cover operating costs without having to come to the taxpayers for a bailout.

Re: The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

Yeah, Brad, its true that Conseco is whale of a facility and that it was built for the Colts. But the fact of the retractable roof doesn't change the fact that the Colts only play games there, whereas the Pacers are housed in Conseco altogether.

Conseco is relatively generic in its built in branding compared to Lucas Oil stadium.

Really? I don't think there's anywhere inside Conseco Fieldhouse that you can't see Pacers regalia. Certainly in the main concourse, throughout the hallways and inside the playing area there's no Pacer-less prospect. The seats are green, but I don't see how you can calll Conseco generic.

And I won't be here to see the dayIt all dries up and blows awayI'd hang around just to seeBut they never had much use for meIn Levelland. (James McMurtry)

Re: The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

The decor in Conseco is not nearly as permanent and could be easily changed. Most Pacer regalia is either in display cases or printed on boards that are easily removed. Even the seats at Lucas have horseshoes built into them, let alone quite a bit of blue and white horseshoe carpeting and other Colts themed areas that were built into the overall structure of the stadium that would be quite costly to change in the event of a franchise departure. Conseco, on the other hand, wouldn't be very expensive to remove all traces of the Pacers in the event they no longer inhabit Conseco in that the Pacers related regalia is not often incorporated into the more permanently attached structure.